Look at Lasik eye surgery and how much cheaper it got when the government-backed off. Also, bringing up lobbyist is exactly proving my point that the federal government will screw the American people for money. So thank you for making my point again. That is why we shouldn't give them more power other than protecting us. 

Minimum wage is for people who put in minimum effort, thus get what they deserve. Raising the minimum wage will increase our cost of living and force automation to replace their job. We have a low unemployment rate and we want to keep it that way, unlike Australia. We have a lot of homeless in mostly liberal areas that have a lot more government control, go figure.

Welfare is a trap because it incentivizes a lot of people to not work and live a depressing life knowing they aren't contributing to society. Also, a lot of welfare recipients end up resorting to criminal activities to make even more money and end up in jail.

1.)  Do you have proof that the government involvement in LASIK has declined?

2.)  Lasik isn't proof of anything, because it's an elective procedure.  When you want to get your eyes fixed, you can call around.  Most insurance companies don't cover lasik, so if you are getting lasik, you probably have the money to drive to a hospital that's further away.  When you have a heart attack, your first option isn't to call around and see which hospital is cheapest.  

Capitalism only works at lowering prices when you have the option to say "no, I can't or won't pay that price."  Most of healthcare doesn't give you that option.

>Minimum wage is for people who put in minimum effort, thus get what they deserve.

1.)  Because life and the world is absolutely fair, and if someone is working a minimum wage job, it's definitely their own fault.  Is that right?  

2.)  Because what people deserve is exactly equal to their effort.  That's why CEO's who simply make decisions, are worth 10,000 times more than someone who works in a hot kitchen.  Sounds fair?

3.)  Because people should always get what they deserve, not what makes the world a better place. Sounds good?  

>We have a low unemployment rate and we want to keep it that way, unlike Australia. 

Australia has a low unemployment rate as well.  

https://www.ft.com/content/9a612758-a8fa-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04

>We have a lot of homeless in mostly liberal areas that have a lot more government control, go figure.

That's largely due to Liberal NIMBYism, not because of some arbitrary measure of government control.  

And again, you keep throwing around "government control" with no concern of policy.  As if government exists on a one dimensional line.  Government isn't that simple.  There's practically an infinite number of policy possibilities, some work better than others.

>Welfare is a trap because it incentivizes a lot of people to not work

A lot of welfare programs have job requirements and/or limits for how long you can have them.  Not exactly incentive to not work.  Quite the opposite.

> live a depressing life knowing they aren't contributing to society

This goes against your previous point.  I know a lot of people that actively avoid welfare because they don't want a hand out.  I doubt most people want welfare.  but it's something that's necessary because the world isn't perfect.  Sometimes people lose their jobs at no fault of their own.  Sometimes people don't get a job at no fault of their own.  Sometimes people have a low paying job through no fault of their own.  

Before welfare was a thing, a lot of those people would have died.  Or more likely turned to crime to try feeding themselves and their family.  

Yes, I have proof that less government involvement in Lasik eye surgery has seen a huge decrease in costs. Here is an article with a nice video from Bob McEwen explaining how the government isn't the answer.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18671/prageru-video-government-cant-fix-health-care-aaron-bandler

This doesn't just apply to health care, pretty much any industry with less government control seen a decrease in price.

That's not a proof, that's an opinion - and a hitpiece.

But if you think governmental involvement is so bad for healthcare, then how come everywhere else in the world where the government handles the healthcare, healthcare is significantly cheaper?

Have a look at this, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_comparisons

The US are last by a country mile in every single category. The only category they are leading, is the pricetag - as in, they're by far the most expensive.

Or how about this here:

US citizens have to pay much more for their healthcare even by purchase parity compared every other nation. And the gap just keeps growing.

Healthcare in the US is not working not because of governmental involvement, but because Republicans continually torpedo every resolution and water them down if they can. Their problem right now is that Obamacare is too popular to repeal without murdering the party, so they just leave it as is. But otherwise they certainly would have repealed it already. They cut coverage where they can not because it helps the patients, but the healthcare lobby who pays them millions and rake in billions due to less coverage.

Also, just consider this: If you're an insurer, do you want to pay for a vaccine or prefer not to, as the statistics say the chance that you get that infection are below 1%? Do you want to cover preventive care or look at the statistics, which say that less than 1% get seriously sick? Or do you want to cover those things, but not the possible less than 1% chance of serious illness?

That's how purely private healthcare works: They cut out their costs so much that they also cut down the benefits for most people who can't afford to pay several extras. They cherry-pick what they cover, and on top of that have their own hospitals, so you just can't go to any hospital, either. You have to go to their hospital to get your coverage.

Also, just think about this: If you travel to the US from most European countries, you need to pay for a travel healthcare which covers flight back in case of illness. Because flying you back over the pond on a stretcher in a special plane is much cheaper than the healthcare in the US. And that rule got included by popular demand from frequent US travelers.

Do you take in account that a lot of european citizens firstly take a pretty big cut on their wages for unemployment/retirement and health insurance....and that is not included in that graph or is it?

I mean on top of higher taxes all included i pay more than the highest amount on that graph and i do not have a very high payed job in Europe,some countries here are way more expensive than the US and it does look like you guys have a bit more money on the side on average not to mention that the people i know that worked in the US got payed a decent amount more than they got in this country for doing the same work.

Sacrifices will need to be made to have a decent healthcaresystem for everyone and more cuts on wages might happen,but i do support a good healthcare for the US ofcourse!

It is included in the graph. After all, that's how the numbers come together in Europe. Also, it depends what you understand under big. Unemployment, health insurance and retirement (by far the biggest chunk of the 3) just add up to 9.5% (7.5% retirement, 1.75% health insurance and 0.25% dependency, which is unemployment both because you can't find a job and being unfit to work due to physical or mental illnesses or disabilities) in Luxembourg.

Unless you're earning minimum wage (where you don't pay any taxes at all anymore), you also don't pay that much in taxes, especially when you're in a couple (how much depends on your yearly household income, we got a progressive chart for that: https://impotsdirects.public.lu/dam-assets/fr/baremes/recueil-bareme-01012017.pdf  It's in French and German, but I think the numbers are easily understood. Starts at page 18 Tax class 1 is single, 1a single with child or widow(er), and 2 official couple, married or otherwise legally bound together). And that's all before you start deducting anything from your taxes (like childcare, home improvement costs, education-related expenses, running credits... it's all listed on the pages before the table). So the actual value of your taxes is often about half of what you see in that table.

It should be said however that the employer also has a share to pay on health insurance and dependency (not sure about retirement), so the actual amount is above those 9.5%. On the other hand, employers can deduct much of these costs from the taxes.

May I ask which country you're from?

Yes, I have proof that less government involvement in Lasik eye surgery has seen a huge decrease in costs. Here is an article with a nice video from Bob McEwen explaining how the government isn't the answer.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18671/prageru-video-government-cant-fix-health-care-aaron-bandler

This doesn't just apply to health care, pretty much any industry with less government control seen a decrease in price.

The free market and giving the power to the states instead of the federal government will correct problems such as emergency care and those who don't have time to shop. For example, the states can make companies that take care of cardiac problems bid against each other each year and whoever offers the lowest price while being able to do their jobs will win and only they can do the treatment. Thus creating competition and working for our hard-earned money. We can also choose which states to live in so this will incentivize the state government to do what it takes to give us the best offer. If more people leave the state, the less money the state government will make because of less tax revenue/business income.

Private insurance can act the same way, they can make deals with your local hospitals and see what they can do to lower the cost of care and fight for our money (which in some cases they do already). Insurance, as you may know, manages a pool of money and the insurance companies will do what it takes to lower the cost of these treatments as well so they don't have to give up a huge amount of money.

Not to mention removing government stupid ass regulations will lower the cost of these hospitals almost instantly. The strict requirements to be a doctor or the control over medicine and basically closing all competition is what helped spiked these costs in the first place.

1. If you are on minimum wage permanently or a good chunk of your life, chances are it is your fault because you didn't get the skills necessary to make more money. Also, you don't have to go to college to make a decent amount of money. I have many family members who make 70k+ and don't have a degree but have the experience and skills to do their job.

2. A lot of people who are on welfare are abusing it, there is a reason why there is a huge chunk of people not included in the employment rate because they refuse to work.  However, over time they realize they haven't achieved anything and sometimes resort to criminal activities to make more money which lands them in jail. Which shows yet again, it is a trap.

PragerU....  

Firstly, the video still doesn't explain anything about Lasik.  It's basically just repeating exactly what you said earlier that "Government intervention decline led to a decline in cost."  Does not giving any examples of how some random government intervention with Lasik declined.  

Regardless of that, again, Lasik doesn't work the way the rest of healthcare works for a very important reason that has absolutely nothing to do with anything with government.  With eye surgery, you have the option to shop around.  With healthcare, you usually don't.  

You might think that the video is extremely logical, but just because something sounds logical doesn't mean that's how it works in practice.  

There are dozens of countries that are evidence that government can do a good job with healthcare, and the evidence against it is Lasik which is elective...  

What you're saying would lead to only one company being able to do their job.  That's the opposite of competition.  

The way competition works on the corporate side is that different companies are able to make a product.  They make money, they build up expertise.  They come up with better and/or cheaper ways to do things.  

If only one company is allowed to do their job, other companies have no incentive to build up expertise. 

That's literally what they do right now.

A big reason why healthcare costs more in the US is because hospitals have huge administration costs.  They have to have massive numbers of people to work with different insurance companies, handle billing, etc.  

Most of those strict requirements are important.  They prevent abuses, and otherwise keep quality high.

1.  

Sure.  A lot become mothers, and aren't able to do a job and schooling, they should definitely be punished for that.  

It's also unthinkable that someone could lose a good paying job, and getting stuck with hardly anything to take of their family.  

2.

>there is a reason why there is a huge chunk of people not included in the employment rate because

And how many people could otherwise work, but are preferring to take welfare? 

>over time they realize they haven't achieved anything and sometimes resort to criminal activities to make more money which lands them in jail

So you think people get disappointed they aren't doing anything with their lives, that they decide to turn to crime?  How does that make any sense?